resume_job

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description goes further by disclosing the partial re-execution model: completed files are skipped, only failed files are retried, and successful cloud responses are reused. That is real behavioral value beyond the structured hints, though it says nothing about permissions, cost, or what happens if the job is already complete.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence stating the action, the eligible job states, and the resume semantics, with no filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the core resume semantics well for a one-parameter mutation tool. It is slightly incomplete on preconditions and on behavior when the target job is already finished.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter job_id, so the description technically fails to compensate. The parameter is self-evident from its name and the resource, so no format or sourcing detail (e.g., where to obtain the id) leaves an agent materially blocked, but the baseline remains 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb ("Resume") and resource ("job") and narrows the applicable job states to interrupted/cancelled/failed, which lets an agent separate it from get_job, list_jobs, and cancel_job. It never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the state qualifier (resume only a job that is interrupted, cancelled, or failed), which is genuinely useful context. However, there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., must the job still exist or be in a resumable state) and no named alternative such as get_job for checking status first.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.